Comments

  1. StandUp says

    Those two queens are just being cowards!

    Sure sweetie, just let the crazy religious nuts continue to intimidate you in front of your own house. I’m sure if you continue to hide under your duvet it will all go away.

  2. TANK says

    confusing? The only think confusing “sometimes” is the stupidity, failings and cowardice of others. There’s very little room in the world for spineless people…even less so for spineless lgbt’ers. Overreacted? Oh, the fear of god should be put in these snivelling faggots…heterosexuals came to their defense…and they scold them? Who knew that you became less of a man as you age. Well, in their case, that goes without saying. The failure of principle belies that they have none.

  3. Ben says

    wow! these two are such cowards! I feel sorry for them, no wonder the bible thumpers were targeting you – you’re weak!

    You should be ashamed that you are not more thankful for your neighbors standing up for you, whether or not you know them.

    Shameful.

  4. says

    Some gays need lack a spine. Every time these evangelicals knock at my door I call the police on them, why do we have to be tolerant of their intolerance? fuck that.

  5. Robin says

    I live in Toronto and entirely disagree with Mr. Chiasson’s assertions that they weren’t targeted. In fact, one of his neighbours stated that a lesbian moved away because of the mid-day sermons. When confronted by vocal bigots, some gay men and women want the issue to just go away and pretend that homophobia does not exist. With that said, these ‘church’ people should not be quoting the Bible chapter and verse in the middle of the street instead keep it behind the closed doors of your church.

  6. Disgusted Gay American says

    I aint taking crap from no-one…if Buy-bull thumpers come to my door….they will in no uncertain terms be told where to go and how to get there,and what to stuff.

  7. Ashur says

    This is utterly revolting. If you don’t stand up for your rights then who will? Oh wait apparently your neighbours. These dudes have it all and they just don’t seem to care, grow some balls please.

  8. says

    Can anyone say cognitive dissonance? Most of you are all up in arms to support the religious freedom of Muslims to pray wherever they want, but when it comes to Christians they’re monsters to be driven back to hell. Don’t get me wrong, I think anyone who believes in any fairy tale religion needs to have their head examined, muslim or christian, but you knee jerk queens really need to get your story straight. Sheesh.

  9. Ashur says

    Good god!!!!! I watched the vid!!!! These homos are so ungrateful!!! No wonder our civil rights are being trampled upon!!!! If I told this to my straight neighbours after they valiantly stood up for me, I think the only thing to do at that point would be move to Utah.

  10. mnrocko says

    IT IS WRONG!! No group of any kind has the right to preach anything on anyone elses street..Keep it in their own f**king parish and preach to people who like to hear that b. s.!
    I am so f**king tired of religion. And the people who believe in that fairy tale.

  11. Ashur says

    Gaylib. You’re wrong! American Muslims condemn homosexuality as much as American Christians. I am Muslim and a big flaming queen. And everybody in my community loves me.

  12. Randy says

    So wait, the church people say they’ve only been trying to chase the gays away for 7 years but the gays claim that they’ve been doing it for more than 13 years?

    Assuming I was straight and lived in a neighborhood where people stood on the sidewalk and preached loudly… I’d not be happy with them being there either.

  13. TANK says

    “Gaylib. You’re wrong! American Muslims condemn homosexuality as much as American Christians.”

    In other words, an extremely thin minority of them support gay rights. Muslims worldwide, and including muslims in the united states, are like christians in that regard…only very very very small margins are not virulently homophobic. The distinguishing characteristic is that most muslims worldwide think that homosexuality should not only be illegal, but punishable by prison and/or death.

    “I am Muslim and a big flaming queen. And everybody in my community loves me.”

    Except most of them. Oh, you define your “community” as only people who accept you. It’s offensive when religionists lie about their the demographics of their favored mythology.

  14. TampaZeke says

    Wow, great way to throw the people who came to your defense under the bus. Whether you felt you were being targeted or not, your neighbors felt that you were and came to defend you. In response you attack them and sing the praises of the people that invaded your neighborhood.

    Message to straights who might consider coming to the defense of gay people, DON’T DARE! Not only will you not be thanked, but you will be made out to look like hysterical haters.

    Gaylib, if you don’t see a difference between minding your own business on COMMERCIAL PROPERTY in lower Manhattan and invading a residential neighborhood to loudly harass the residents in their homes from the street, then you are too stupid to bother explaining the difference to.

  15. Randy says

    Gaylib, these people are preaching loudly on public property with the intent to harass/convert. The Muslims at the mosque going up not anywhere near ground zero want to do so on their own private property after following the letter and intent of the laws.

    Night and day.

  16. ReallyGAYLIB says

    Gaylib,
    As usual you’re trying to compare apples to oranges. At least the Muslims you’re referring to would be praying inside their own community center on private property. These nut jobs are out in the street in a small neighborhood disturbing the peace specifically targeting someone in their own home. Nice try though.

  17. Ashur says

    gaylib. People have a right to practice any religion. I will fight tooth and nail to preserve Islam, and Christianity. The point is, however, nobody wants to be told they are wrong, ie don’t preach on my damn street corner. The way to show these religious zealots that they are wrong, is by befriending them and showing them thay islam or christianity is not incompatible with being gay. And hinting to them that all fervently antigays are themselves gay. Honestly, most Muslims understand many of the laws aren’t relevant now, and point out that you are only acting ina way that god programmed you.

  18. says

    Tampa, so you’re all for freedom of religion, but not freedom of speech? Seems like a pretty stupid stance to take for a member of an oppressed minority. I guess, then, that you agree with the Mormons who don’t want people to know who donated to prop 8 because it will lead to their “harassment”. Personally, I think that all religion is an abomination, but you can’t pick and choose those that don’t offend you to defend (and for the life of me I don’t know why you queens are defending muslims–see Tank’s comment) but I support the constitution, so Muslims can build whatever they want in NY, and crazy ass Christians can say whatever they want to on a public street, as long as they aren’t inciting violence. And the courts agree with me, as does the ACLU. Guess they’re stupid too.

  19. TANK says

    Oy…

    I love it when gay people fall over themselves to defend a faith that almost universally condemns their very existence….whether christianity or islam.

    I guess homophobes who pray in their own houses of worship for aids to destroy gay people aren’t nut jobs…

  20. Ashur says

    it is so ironic. You are all virtually as ignorant as christians on a forum writing about gays. Instead we are gays posting about christianity. Most christians know nothing about being gay, most muslims know mothing about being gay. That said: please continue the ignorant hate fest about how all religions hate gays. I mistakenly thought that as an abused minority, gays may understand misrepresentation by the loudest and worst constituents. Wasting my time (signs out)

  21. says

    “You are all virtually as ignorant as christians on a forum writing about gays.”

    “please continue the ignorant hate fest about how all religions hate gays.”

    Huh??? isn’t that what you just did? Don’t get your knickers in a twist just because we’re not bashing the “right” religion. They all suck, and most religious people would rather see us dead than give us any kind of rights.

  22. Jarod says

    Let’s see GAYLIB, we have on one side a Islamic community center that will be open to anyone who chooses to go there to hear what they have to say, vs. people going, uninvited, into a residential neighborhood to scream Bible versus at people, who don’t want to hear them, in their own homes.

    Yeah, those two things are almost identical.

    You’ve gone way past liberal and fallen off the edge of reason!

  23. nic says

    who the fuck is defending islam, idiots? a person or group can erect a place of worship on private property. that is their right. freedom of speech does not involve preaching in a residential street in front of a private residence with impunity. blow-back is a bitch, as the zealots were shown by the neighbors with spines. alas, the queers decided they didn’t want to get involved in their own cause.

  24. TANK says

    Ashur, is it your contention that the vast majority of muslims throughout the world and in the united states aren’t virulently homophobic? That it isn’t commonplace for an imam to preach the punishment of death for those who are homosexual/engage in homosexual behavior? How about apostasy? What’s the punishment for apostasy in islam? Care to answer? Because it’s not “live and let live,” kiddo.

    And worldwide, christianity is a virulently homophobic faith, and the vast majority of christians are homophobic. In fact, the vast majority of american christians are homophobic…even the “live and let live variety.” But the difference between christianity in the developed world and that in the undeveloped world is highlighted by Uganda…that is, the forces of enlightenment values (secular ethics) and scientific breakthroughs coupled with economic prosperity have enabled the darkness of ignorant superstition, and highly unethical value that comes with it to be limited…to a certain extent…still a long way to go.

  25. says

    “people going, uninvited, into a residential neighborhood to scream Bible versus at people”

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like what they did. But the right to public assembly and freedom of speech are fundamental to a democracy. If they are causing a disturbance, fine, call the police and have them cited (which i seriously doubt they would do). But if you’re suggesting that people shouldn’t be allowed to express themselves in public if it is something you find distasteful, then I suggest you go read the constitution. Oh, and don’t bother going to any protest rallies, or gay pride for causes you support. You know, back in the 90’s we used to protest outside of the home of anti-gay bigot Jesse Helms demanding that he address the AIDS epidemic, and many right wingers were making the exact same argument as you. It is beyond depressing to hear members of our own community make the same anti-American argument. The same argument, I’ll reiterate, that the Mormons have used to keep us from knowing who the donors to prop 8 were, and which courts have repeatedly said they cannot do. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

  26. TampaZeke says

    OK GAYLIB, since you’re so wise, PLEASE, share with us all your understanding of free speech.

    You don’t even know what free speech means in AMERICA, so I can’t imagine that you know the free speech rights provided by other countries, like Canada.

    Let me educate you just a bit. Free speech rights, in AMERICA, means that the GOVERNMENT will not, unless absolutely necessary, limit the speech of its citizens. It does NOT mean that people have a right to say whatever they want without fear of challenge or consequence. It certainly doesn’t mean that a person has the right to go into a residential neighborhood to harass people in their homes, and it MOST CERTAINLY doesn’t mean that the people being harassed have no right to respond, challenge or confront the people harassing them.

    Furthermore, most countries don’t have constitutional free speech rights that deny the government to restrict speech, which again, DOESN’T apply to this situation. I don’t know what Canada’s laws say but I’m most certain that they don’t protect a person’s right to harass people in their homes.

    I don’t know what’s gotten you up on this crazy high horse, but you’re looking like a fool right now.

  27. says

    “freedom of speech does not involve preaching in a residential street in front of a private residence”

    I, and the ACLU, and the Constitution would beg to differ. In fact, they not only can pray on the street, they can even come up and knock on my door and ask me to accept Jesus into my heart(which to my consternation they do quite often). If I ask them to leave my property, they must, but I can’t stop them from standing on the street and saying whatever they want. Just as I can’t stop them from building a church next door to me with a banner that says “we hate fags”. Hell, we can’t even stop them from protesting at the funeral of dead soldiers, just ask the westboro freaks. It sucks, but believe me, it is far better than the alternative.

  28. Leonard says

    It’s not anti-American to be anti-harrasment.

    This is harassment NOT free-speech. They are disrupting the peace and for that should be cited.

    They can hold a peaceful protest, but that’s not what they’re doing.

  29. ashur says

    One last note, the majority of anti-gay sentiments that you are all referring to that Islam allegedly supports only apply when one of the persons is married to a woman. It is then considered Zina, or adultery, because you are cheating on your wife. (Hanafi school)

    In fact may young men in Saudi Arabia are expected to have sex with men, in order to maintain virginity.

    Please please please read more about homosexuaity in Islam, it appears that your views are skewed, as most of what you have been reading is Talibani law, not Shari’a.

    As a matter of fact, before the 19th century, gay Europeans sought refuge in Muslim countries because of their tolerant views on homosexuality. There are a plethora of articles out there.

  30. TANK says

    “It certainly doesn’t mean that a person has the right to go into a residential neighborhood to harass people in their homes,”

    Of course it does…if they do it peacefully and without creating a “public disturbance”. Are you saying that gay rights groups don’t have the constitutional freedom to protest outside of the home of a rabid antigay leader so long as they do it peacefully? It seems like not only are you making that argument, but you’re saying that they shouldn’t have the right to do it…no wonder it’s taken so long to get nothing in the u.s…with common attitudes like this…was roy cohn right about gay people? I hope not…

  31. jamal49 says

    Well, that was a nice, punk answer. No wonder everybody thinks they can walk all over us. Those two Toronto queens need to man it up a little. If I were those two pansies’ neighbors, I’d say “OK, guys. You’re on your own. And, screw you.”

  32. says

    I suppose your’e right. I am assuming that Canada has a guaranteed freedom of speech, but I don’t know. But I seriously doubt that your reaction would be any different if this were happening in Tampa. And people do have a right to vociferously respond to them. They do not have the right, no matter what you say, though, to silence them. No more right than the wingnuts have to tell the Muslims they can’t build a mosque in manhattan.

  33. TampaZeke says

    ASHUR, didn’t you “sign out” and huff off three comments ago?

    Why do you keep commenting then?

    GAYLIB, AGAIN, please explain to us all YOUR understanding of CONSTITUTIONAL free speech rights.

    Please cite legitimate references and resources. Focus on the Family and Glen Beck don’t count.

    This should be good!

  34. TANK says

    “One last note, the majority of anti-gay sentiments that you are all referring to that Islam allegedly supports only apply when one of the persons is married to a woman. It is then considered Zina, or adultery, because you are cheating on your wife. (Hanafi school)”

    Really? I guess the over 4,000 gays and lesbians in iran executed because they’re gay were all married to women (false)… Further, that’s simply not true…as islamic homophobic law covers the married and unmarried alike. But to entertain your suggestion, how does that possibly make it okay? Adultery should be punished by execution or prison? That’s insanity.

    “In fact may young men in Saudi Arabia are expected to have sex with men, in order to maintain virginity.”

    So that would imply that homosexuality is a capital offense in saudi arabia, wouldn’t it? Oh, but it is…and people are punished severely for it (punishments that include execution, btw).

    Do you want me to actually bring out serious numbers about gay rights in the muslim world to refute you? I don’t mind doing that, and there are literally mountains of shocking realities that you refuse to acknowledge because of…your faith.

  35. TampaZeke says

    GAYLIB,

    I’ll spot you your first reference; the first Amendment, which is what I think you are misinterpreting and misusing.

    CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

    Please explain to us how anyone has violated the harassers freedom of speech rights when it’s only CONGRESS and the government that can EVER violate a person’s constitutional free speech rights.

    Nothing in that amendment says that private citizens can’t challenge, confront, boycott, fire or otherwise respond to another citizen’s speech.

  36. DumbassTank says

    @tank

    “It certainly doesn’t mean that a person has the right to go into a residential neighborhood to harass people in their homes,”

    Tank wrote: Of course it does…if they do it peacefully and without creating a “public disturbance”.

    Oh Tank, you are as dumb as Gaylib. But my dear, they weren’t doing it peacefully. They were “reading their bible loudly for the past 7 years”. They were reading it loudly enough to disturb the surrounding homeowners enough to come out of their houses to stop the harassment and disturbance. You fail to notice the difference between a peaceful demonstration and what this church group was doing in a residential neighborhood.

  37. TampaZeke says

    And YES GAYLIB, you’re right on one thing, I WOULD apply that in Tampa just as I would ANYWHERE in AMERICA.

    Contrary to your claim, so would the ACLU. They have NEVER said that protesters have a right to not be challenged or confronted by other private citizens.

  38. says

    OK:

    “JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — A federal judge Monday ruled that Missouri laws restricting protests near funerals are unconstitutional.

    Missouri legislators passed two laws in 2006 in response to protests at servicemembers’ funerals by members of Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The church contends the deaths are God’s punishment for the U.S. tolerating homosexuality.

    U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan ruled the laws violate the right of free speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.”

    http://www.military.com/news/article/judge-overturns-protest-ban-aimed-at-westboro.html

    in fact the supreme court has agreed to hear this case, much to the dismay of LIBERAL legal experts who can’t believe that there is any question regarding free speech.

    “Uphill Battle for Snyder The Washington Post’s Robert Barnes writes, “Despite the political firepower, First Amendment specialists think Albert Snyder has a difficult case to prove to a court that has been particularly outspoken on government attempts to regulate speech and has accepted two privacy cases for the term that begins in the fall. George Washington University law professor Daniel J. Solove, the author of ‘Understanding Privacy,’ said he finds it ‘perplexing’ that the justices took the case. The message of Phelps and his followers is ‘stupid and obnoxious,’ Solove said, ‘but seems to fit squarely into the kind of unpopular speech that the Constitution protects.'”

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Why-Supreme-Court-Case-on-Westboro-Baptist-Church-Matters-3842

    (that’s liberal mag The Atlantic, not Glenn Beck, you idiot).

    I don’t suppose you think what these people were doing was anything remotely as nasty as what the westboro freaks say.

  39. TANK says

    Well, one can read one’s bible loudly and still be demonstrating peacefully. Perhaps you’re arguing against the right of christofascists to bring megaphones to gay pride parades…are you? How about any “loud” demonstration at all?

    Look, peaceful demonstration isn’t whatever you define it as. Free speech means something entirely different in canada than it does in the united states, however.

  40. says

    “Nothing in that amendment says that private citizens can’t challenge, confront, boycott, fire or otherwise respond to another citizen’s speech”

    I never said that, in fact I AGREED with you on that. They CAN NOT force them to leave, however, and neither can the government, ie, the police who act on their behalf. “Driving them out” of a public area is a violation of their freedom of speech. Just because they aren’t “the government” doesn’t mean that anyone can infinge on someone else’s rights to free speech in a public area. How dense are you?

  41. Tone says

    So many on this board are trying to disenfranchise the homeowners after vigorously defending their right to freedom from religion the day before! Make up your minds! The voices of the owners must be respected. We do not live on that street, they and their neighbors do. I’d hate it too if do-gooder x-tians preached adjacent to my front lawn, but it appears that this is more of a tempest in a tea cup than an abridgmeent of anyone’s civil rights.

  42. TampaZeke says

    GAYLIB, it’s really uncool to post support for yourself under a different screen name.

    TANK, I would respond to your comment but for the life of me I can’t figure out what you were trying to say.

    Again, I’m not supporting the government coming in and removing people. I’m simply supporting the right of private citizens to respond to speech WITH speech and pointing out the oft used fallacy that “freedom of speech” means freedom of UNCHALLENGED speech.

  43. says

    “They were reading it loudly enough to disturb the surrounding homeowners enough to come out of their houses to stop the harassment and disturbance”

    Who’s the dumbass? You think you can take the law into your own hands whenver YOU feel like it is being violated? That’s why we have police, and courts. Because we live in a civilized society. And your “peaceful” argument is equally stupid. Can I go run my neighbor off his lawn becuase I’m trying to take a nap while he’s mowing the grass? As long as these people weren’t violating an noise ordinances (which are usually confined to nighttime hours), they are pretty much within their rights. That said, if you think they have crossed the line, you call the cops, you don’t take the law into your own hands.

  44. TampaZeke says

    GAYLIB, in EACH and EVERY one of your examples of free speech violation it was a LAW that violated a citizen’s free speech rights, NOT private citizens EXACTLY as I’ve been saying over and over here.

    You have STILL not provided evidence of how these people’s free speech rights would have been violated if everything that happened had happened in America. Congress didn’t attempt to limit their speech with a law but yet you continue to claim that what happened to them was somehow a violation of free speech rights.

    But thanks for going to such effort to, point by point, prove my point about what constitutional free speech rights are.

    This really must be embarrassing for you at this point.

  45. Derrick says

    Something HUGE is being unnoticed here.
    As soon as the black woman, the one with the big picture hat on, noticed she was being filmed they started to retreat. They knew what they were doing was WRONG.

  46. says

    “This really must be embarrassing for you at this point.”

    It certainly does. It embarrasses the hell out of me just how stupid people in this country are. According to you, I can go bully anyone into being quiet because I don’t make a “law” to do it. You’re about as competent a “constitutional scholar” as our president.

  47. TANK says

    “It certainly doesn’t mean that a person has the right to go into a residential neighborhood to harass people in their homes,”

    This is what you wrote, tampazeke. So from that, I can infer that you believe protesting in the street (which isn’t owned by the homeowner or individual neighbors), is harassment. This simply isn’t true–at least in the u.s. If no local noise ordinances or public nuisance laws are violated, then it’s perfectly legal to protest outside of someone’s home on a public street. And further, those subjected to this kind of “harassment” are free to respond. But freedom to do something, and whether or not one should do it aren’t the same thing…maybe that’s what you’re misunderstanding.

  48. TampaZeke says

    GAYLIB, I watched the video. No one physically touched, assaulted, corralled or molested any of the church people. They verbally challenged them and confronted them, told them that they didn’t want them there, nothing more. With that the church people left.

    I’m failing to see how the church people, even by your misinformed definition of free speech, were expressing their right to free speech but the residents weren’t.

    However, I’ll be happy to back off and listen as you explain why one side was free speech and the other was a violation of free speech.

  49. Jake says

    Gaylib –
    your arguments are flawed and irrational. You’re comparing the reasonable noise of a lawnmower to loud protesters who are harassing a small neighborhood! You’re just an idiot know-it-all. Have you ever heard of being self-aware? No, I didn’t think so!

  50. says

    I have said all along that they have every right to say anything they want to the church people, they just can’t force them to leave. My original commentary here was about the hypocrisy of commenters on this site when it comes to supporting constitutional rights. I never said the neighbors didn’t have a right to express their opposition. I was talking about commenters here (including you) who argued they didn’t have a right to be there at all.

  51. says

    “You’re comparing the reasonable noise of a lawnmower to loud protesters who are harassing a small neighborhood”

    Yes, I am. But I’m also saying that the arbiter of what is and isn’t acceptable should be the authorities, not a crowd of vigilantes. Why is that so hard to understand?

  52. TampaZeke says

    TANK, way to take a sentence, chop off the first part of it and the last part of it, post it out of context and then argue against it. That’s called a Straw man bubba.

    And, regardless of what you or I think about a right to harass a person in their home, do me a favor…go to your local Mayor’s house and scream harassment at him/her and see how well that “right” works out for you.

    Didn’t understand why you have such a terrible reputation, til now.

  53. TANK says

    Because being politically connected makes subverting the bill of rights okay…

    this is all about drawing out some inconsistency is people who defend free speech and religion in terms of ought and shouldn’t.

  54. TampaZeke says

    GAYLIB, are you ever going to get around to providing us with evidence that constitutional free speech means what you’ve been misstating it means?

    You’ve done a great job of proving that it means what I said it meant but not in proving that it means people have the right to say or do what they want without being confronted or challenged.

    You certainly haven’t explained how these people’s freedom of speech was violated as you claimed.

  55. nic says

    @TAMPAZEKE, i can’t see how this could be explained any more clearly to GAYLIB. he stubbornly keeps confusing govt abridgment of speech with say, counter protest. else, why would he have wasted his time and ours with that over-long, irrelevant comment about the phelps crazy clan?

    @GAYLIB, you certainly can try to bully someone into silence, but you shouldn’t be surprised if you are bullied back, or worse. btw, obama IS INDEED a constitutional scholar. what do you have to recommend YOU?

  56. TampaZeke says

    TANK, again, you took part of a sentence, the middle part, and defined my position on the first amendment by your misinterpretation of what I said. When I used the term “harass” I was implying that the protest was causing a disturbance of the peace. We can argue all day over how we define “disturbing the peace” but it seems that the neighbors felt that the peace in their neighborhood had been disturbed and they responded with their own speech. Again, in that light, I don’t see that what I’m saying is any different than what you’re saying.

    I, like you, am making the point that “freedom of speech”, is not what most people think it is.

  57. says

    Sorry Zeke, I can try to explain it to you all day, but I don’t have the time or patience to teach you reading comprehension. What a waste. Talking to you is like talking to the fundies. The argument always boils down to “I’m right becuase I say I am”. I provided you examples, and you provided me none. Show me precedent of where it has been deemed OK for people to have people forcibly removed from a public space for loud, nonviolent, speech. Show me where the courts have ever sided with those that tried to silence other people because they didn’t like what they were saying. Go on. I’ll wait. Until then, enjoy your life knowing that you told me so! I’m sure it feels good to someone as little as you.

  58. TampaZeke says

    You provided me with examples of LAWS being ruled unconstitutional. Which proved MY point not yours. You have YET to explain how the church people’s right to free speech was challenged. YOU were the one who claimed that these peoples’ freedom of speech was being violated and STILL you haven’t provided one shred of evidence to back up your charge.

    I know you realize that you’ve stubbornly hung on to a claim that you now realize is baseless. The least you could do would be admit it and bow out gracefully rather than trying to change the subject and make FURTHER claims that aren’t true, like your bogus claim that you’ve provided proof that the church peoples’ freedom of speech was violated. You didn’t give one shred of evidence that the government stopped them from expressing themselves. You haven’t even shown that private citizens did anything other than meet their speech WITH speech.

    You’re the one who came out screeching about hypocrisy with your red herring logical fallacy comparing the so-called “mosque” at the so-called 9/11 site. I should have known that you were off the rails when you were parroting teabagger misinformation about what the Islamic center was and where it would be located and then trying to make some apples to oranges comparison between two entirely unrelated, unalike instances. I think both Islam and Christianity are evil, but that doesn’t change their constitutional rights. The constitution protects them from me just as much as it protects me from them.

    Maybe you should change your screen name to GAYBAGGER.

  59. TampaZeke says

    AGAIN GAYLIB, I’ve watched the video. YOU show ME where these people were “forcibly” removed as you continue to claim.

    Everyone here can see for themselves that your claim is absolutely baseless. The residents VERBALLY responded to the church people and the church people left. NO force, NO violence! Not even a threat of force or violence. Is your argument that the church people have “free speech” rights but the residents don’t? That seems to be the point your now trying to make.

    Honest to dog, you’re actually trying to make a claim that the video clearly shows is bogus yet it’s ME who’s thick. Sugar, you’re nuts!

  60. TampaZeke says

    NIC, you’re right. I give up. I’ve wasted WAY too much time on this idiot already.

    Rant away GAYLIB, I’m done. I’ll let my previous words, and yours, speak for themselves.

  61. Randy says

    http://www.fac.org/Assembly/faqs.aspx?id=16479&#q16479

    Free speech in America can be location limited as long as it’s content neutral. I am guessing that in many places in America residential neighborhoods likely have noise and order ordinances that prevent someone from standing outside peoples’ homes and yelling.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada

    Canada’s laws are even less absolute about free speech. The government can limit free speech under circumstances that can be proved to be beneficial to a democratic society.

    All of this is moot. This isn’t related to the Muslim Mosque at all. The protesters of the Muslim Mosque have a right to protest (after all, they did get permits for it) but the Mosque is still not violating any laws and those protesters aren’t any less idiotic. Finally, this has nothing to do with the Muslim Mosque, but nice trolling there.

  62. says

    Whoa… this was almost more entertaining than sitcoms [ensuing comments to post].

    Tampazeke… I agree… any group that counter-protests another groups ‘speech’ rally has the right to do so [as in the neighbors confronting the bible-thunpers]. No one actually argued against this… although through all this I may have missed it.

    That said, Gaylib and Tank were also right in saying that those that called for the removal of said bible-thumpers were being hypocritical… that doing so was just as much a violation of free speech as it would be for anyone else’s free speech to be gagged.

    Now Tampazeke… you kept saying that no one ‘forced’ them to leave…

    Oh?

    Intimidation works wonders… believe me I’ve seen it happen in many marches and protests.

    Too, for all those who heard on that tape then what was there…

    I heard no bible-thumper “yelling”. Saying they had rights being there yes, yelling bible verses no. In fact, the arguing was already in full swing when the camera individual even approached. And the neighbors were the ones being the loudest.

    No references were made of homosexuals… so that couple may very well be right in their assertion that they were not being targeted as was reported. And G-d only knows how much grief this has caused them unnecessarily [what with the media whores trying to get a ‘scoop’ or some nut jobs].

    My college professor was right, it’s amazing how unreliable so called ‘witnesses’ can be.

  63. Anne says

    How sad that so many of you are now attacking 2 guys for being honest! I’m a neighbour who saw/heard the entire event, has known the guys for years, & can vouch that they’re telling the truth. But I guess there’s no room in your hateful minds for that. The “defending” neighbours DON’T EVEN KNOW the fellows, were rather nasty in dealing with the annoying church group (who’s been around MANY decades), & “state” a lot of gossip. Even Skelding (video poster) backstepped from a 680 newsweb story (BTW the original hack story, entitled “Neighbours in Leslieville defend gay couple against homophobic attack” has been PULLED & overwritten on the 680 website.)

    Tank, Standup, Ben, Robin, etc. … the whole lot of you amaze me that you would believe the media & a handful of gossipy neighbours that you aren’t even near… The guys would be cowards for NOT telling the truth. THEY are an honest source, speaking out, & rightfully pissed off at how badly media & “talk” can distort reality.

    Jane, there are tons of gays on this street … even right across the street from the church. This church group has done their Sunday eve hymns/fire & brimstone act LONG before the neighbourhood became fashionable for gays, & the “aggressive door-knocking parishioners” are from MANY religious groups.

    Shame.

Leave A Reply